The Intelligent Investor: The Definitive Book On Value part 4 pdf

• After his Amerindo Technology Fund rose an incredible 248.9%
in 1999, portfolio manager Alberto Vilar ridiculed anyone who
dared to doubt that the Internet was a perpetual moneymaking
machine: “If you’re out of this sector, you’re going to underper-
form. You’re in a horse and buggy, and I’m in a Porsche. You
don’t like tenfold growth opportunities? Then go with someone
else.”
6
• In February 2000, hedge-fund manager James J. Cramer pro-
claimed that Internet-related companies “are the only ones worth
owning right now.” These “winners of the new world,” as he called
them, “are the only ones that are going higher consistently in
good days and bad.” Cramer even took a potshot at Graham: “You
have to throw out all of the matrices and formulas and texts that
existed before the Web. . . . If we used any of what Graham and
Dodd teach us, we wouldn’t have a dime under management.”
7
All these so-called experts ignored Graham’s sober words of warn-
ing:
“Obvious prospects for physical growth in a business do not
translate into obvious profits for investors.”
While it seems easy to
foresee which industry will grow the fastest, that foresight has no real
value if most other investors are already expecting the same thing. By
the time everyone decides that a given industry is “obviously” the best
16 Commentary on the Introduction
money at him, flinging more than $100 million into his fund over the next
year. A $10,000 investment in the Monument Internet Fund in May 1999
would have shrunk to roughly $2,000 by year-end 2002. (The Monument
fund no longer exists in its original form and is now known as Orbitex
Emerging Technology Fund.)

6
Lisa Reilly Cullen, “The Triple Digit Club,” Money, December, 1999, p. 170.
If you had invested $10,000 in Vilar’s fund at the end of 1999, you would
have finished 2002 with just $1,195 left—one of the worst destructions of
wealth in the history of the mutual-fund industry.
7
See www.thestreet.com/funds/smarter/891820.html. Cramer’s favorite
stocks did not go “higher consistently in good days and bad.” By year-end
2002, one of the 10 had already gone bankrupt, and a $10,000 investment
spread equally across Cramer’s picks would have lost 94%, leaving you
with a grand total of $597.44. Perhaps Cramer meant that his stocks would
be “winners” not in “the new world,” but in the world to come.
one to invest in, the prices of its stocks have been bid up so high that
its future returns have nowhere to go but down.
For now at least, no one has the gall to try claiming that technology
will still be the world’s greatest growth industry. But make sure you
remember this: The people who now claim that the next “sure thing”
will be health care, or energy, or real estate, or gold, are no more likely
to be right in the end than the hypesters of high tech turned out to be.
THE SILVER LINING
If no price seemed too high for stocks in the 1990s, in 2003 we’ve
reached the point at which no price appears to be low enough. The
pendulum has swung, as Graham knew it always does, from irrational
exuberance to unjustifiable pessimism. In 2002, investors yanked $27
billion out of stock mutual funds, and a survey conducted by the Secu-
rities Industry Association found that one out of 10 investors had cut
back on stocks by at least 25%. The same people who were eager to
buy stocks in the late 1990s—when they were going up in price and,
therefore, becoming expensive—sold stocks as they went down in
price and, by definition, became cheaper.

As Graham shows so brilliantly in Chapter 8, this is exactly back-
wards. The intelligent investor realizes that stocks become more risky,
not less, as their prices rise—and less risky, not more, as their prices
fall. The intelligent investor dreads a bull market, since it makes stocks
more costly to buy. And conversely (so long as you keep enough cash
on hand to meet your spending needs), you should welcome a bear
market, since it puts stocks back on sale.
8
So take heart: The death of the bull market is not the bad news
everyone believes it to be. Thanks to the decline in stock prices, now
is a considerably safer—and saner—time to be building wealth. Read
on, and let Graham show you how.
Commentary on the Introduction 17
8
The only exception to this rule is an investor in the advanced stage of
retirement, who may not be able to outlast a long bear market. Yet even an
elderly investor should not sell her stocks merely because they have gone
down in price; that approach not only turns her paper losses into real ones
but deprives her heirs of the potential to inherit those stocks at lower costs
for tax purposes.
CHAPTER 1
Investment versus Speculation: Results to
Be Expected by the Intelligent Investor
This chapter will outline the viewpoints that will be set forth in
the remainder of the book. In particular we wish to develop at the
outset our concept of appropriate portfolio policy for the individ-
ual, nonprofessional investor.
Investment versus Speculation
What do we mean by “investor”? Throughout this book the
term will be used in contradistinction to “speculator.” As far back

as 1934, in our textbook
Security Analysis,
1
we attempted a precise
formulation of the difference between the two, as follows: “An
investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis prom-
ises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not
meeting these requirements are speculative.”
While we have clung tenaciously to this definition over the
ensuing 38 years, it is worthwhile noting the radical changes that
have occurred in the use of the term “investor” during this period.
After the great market decline of 1929–1932 all common stocks
were widely regarded as speculative by nature. (A leading author-
ity stated flatly that only bonds could be bought for investment.
2
)
Thus we had then to defend our definition against the charge that
it gave too wide scope to the concept of investment.
Now our concern is of the opposite sort. We must prevent our
readers from accepting the common jargon which applies the term
“investor” to anybody and everybody in the stock market. In our
last edition we cited the following headline of a front-page article
of our leading financial journal in June 1962:
18
SMALL INVESTORS BEARISH, THEY ARE SELLING ODD-LOTS SHORT
In October 1970 the same journal had an editorial critical of what it
called “reckless investors,” who this time were rushing in on the
buying side.
These quotations well illustrate the confusion that has been
dominant for many years in the use of the words investment and

speculation. Think of our suggested definition of investment given
above, and compare it with the sale of a few shares of stock by an
inexperienced member of the public, who does not even own what
he is selling, and has some largely emotional conviction that he
will be able to buy them back at a much lower price. (It is not irrel-
evant to point out that when the 1962 article appeared the market
had already experienced a decline of major size, and was now get-
ting ready for an even greater upswing. It was about as poor a time
as possible for selling short.) In a more general sense, the later-used
phrase “reckless investors” could be regarded as a laughable con-
tradiction in terms—something like “spendthrift misers”—were
this misuse of language not so mischievous.
The newspaper employed the word “investor” in these
instances because, in the easy language of Wall Street, everyone
who buys or sells a security has become an investor, regardless of
what he buys, or for what purpose, or at what price, or whether for
cash or on margin. Compare this with the attitude of the public
toward common stocks in 1948, when over 90% of those queried
expressed themselves as opposed to the purchase of common
stocks.
3
About half gave as their reason “not safe, a gamble,” and
about half, the reason “not familiar with.”* It is indeed ironical
Investment versus Speculation 19
* The survey Graham cites was conducted for the Fed by the University of
Michigan and was published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin, July, 1948.
People were asked, “Suppose a man decides not to spend his money. He
can either put it in a bank or in bonds or he can invest it. What do you think
would be the wisest thing for him to do with the money nowadays—put it in
the bank, buy savings bonds with it, invest it in real estate, or buy common

stock with it?” Only 4% thought common stock would offer a “satisfactory”
return; 26% considered it “not safe” or a “gamble.” From 1949 through
1958, the stock market earned one of its highest 10-year returns in history,
(though not surprising) that common-stock purchases of all kinds
were quite generally regarded as highly speculative or risky at a
time when they were selling on a most attractive basis, and due
soon to begin their greatest advance in history; conversely the very
fact they had advanced to what were undoubtedly dangerous lev-
els as judged by past experience later transformed them into “invest-
ments,” and the entire stock-buying public into “investors.”
The distinction between investment and speculation in common
stocks has always been a useful one and its disappearance is a
cause for concern. We have often said that Wall Street as an institu-
tion would be well advised to reinstate this distinction and to
emphasize it in all its dealings with the public. Otherwise the stock
exchanges may some day be blamed for heavy speculative losses,
which those who suffered them had not been properly warned
against. Ironically, once more, much of the recent financial embar-
rassment of some stock-exchange firms seems to have come from
the inclusion of speculative common stocks in their own capital
funds. We trust that the reader of this book will gain a reasonably
clear idea of the risks that are inherent in common-stock commit-
ments—risks which are inseparable from the opportunities of
profit that they offer, and both of which must be allowed for in the
investor’s calculations.
What we have just said indicates that there may no longer be
such a thing as a simon-pure investment policy comprising repre-
sentative common stocks—in the sense that one can always wait to
buy them at a price that involves no risk of a market or “quota-
tional” loss large enough to be disquieting. In most periods the

investor must recognize the existence of a speculative factor in his
common-stock holdings. It is his task to keep this component
within minor limits, and to be prepared financially and psycholog-
ically for adverse results that may be of short or long duration.
Two paragraphs should be added about stock speculation per
se, as distinguished from the speculative component now inherent
20 The Intelligent Investor
averaging 18.7% annually. In a fascinating echo of that early Fed survey, a
poll conducted by BusinessWeek at year-end 2002 found that only 24% of
investors were willing to invest more in their mutual funds or stock portfolios,
down from 47% just three years earlier.
in most representative common stocks. Outright speculation is
neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the
pocketbook. More than that, some speculation is necessary and
unavoidable, for in many common-stock situations there are sub-
stantial possibilities of both profit and loss, and the risks therein
must be assumed by someone.* There is intelligent speculation as
there is intelligent investing. But there are many ways in which
speculation may be unintelligent. Of these the foremost are: (1)
speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seri-
ously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge
and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you
can afford to lose.
In our conservative view every nonprofessional who operates
on margin† should recognize that he is ipso facto speculating, and it
is his broker’s duty so to advise him. And everyone who buys a
so-called “hot” common-stock issue, or makes a purchase in any
way similar thereto, is either speculating or gambling. Speculation
is always fascinating, and it can be a lot of fun while you are ahead
of the game. If you want to try your luck at it, put aside a portion—

the smaller the better—of your capital in a separate fund for this
purpose. Never add more money to this account just because the
Investment versus Speculation 21
* Speculation is beneficial on two levels: First, without speculation, untested
new companies (like Amazon.com or, in earlier times, the Edison Electric
Light Co.) would never be able to raise the necessary capital for expansion.
The alluring, long-shot chance of a huge gain is the grease that lubricates
the machinery of innovation. Secondly, risk is exchanged (but never elimi-
nated) every time a stock is bought or sold. The buyer purchases the primary
risk that this stock may go down. Meanwhile, the seller still retains a residual
risk—the chance that the stock he just sold may go up!
† A margin account enables you to buy stocks using money you borrow
from the brokerage firm. By investing with borrowed money, you make more
when your stocks go up—but you can be wiped out when they go down. The
collateral for the loan is the value of the investments in your account—so you
must put up more money if that value falls below the amount you borrowed.
For more information about margin accounts, see www.sec.gov/investor/
pubs/margin.htm, www.sia.com/publications/pdf/MarginsA.pdf, and www.
nyse.com/pdfs/2001_factbook_09.pdf.
market has gone up and profits are rolling in. (That’s the time to
think of taking money out of your speculative fund.) Never mingle
your speculative and investment operations in the same account,
nor in any part of your thinking.
Results to Be Expected by the Defensive Investor
We have already defined the defensive investor as one inter-
ested chiefly in safety plus freedom from bother. In general what
course should he follow and what return can he expect under
“average normal conditions”—if such conditions really exist? To
answer these questions we shall consider first what we wrote on
the subject seven years ago, next what significant changes have

occurred since then in the underlying factors governing the
investor’s expectable return, and finally what he should do and
what he should expect under present-day (early 1972) conditions.
1. What We Said Six Years Ago
We recommended that the investor divide his holdings between
high-grade bonds and leading common stocks; that the proportion
held in bonds be never less than 25% or more than 75%, with the
converse being necessarily true for the common-stock component;
that his simplest choice would be to maintain a 50–50 proportion
between the two, with adjustments to restore the equality when
market developments had disturbed it by as much as, say, 5%. As
an alternative policy he might choose to reduce his common-stock
component to 25% “if he felt the market was dangerously high,”
and conversely to advance it toward the maximum of 75% “if he
felt that a decline in stock prices was making them increasingly
attractive.”
In 1965 the investor could obtain about 4
1
⁄2% on high-grade tax-
able bonds and 3
1
⁄4% on good tax-free bonds. The dividend return
on leading common stocks (with the DJIA at 892) was only about
3.2%. This fact, and others, suggested caution. We implied that “at
normal levels of the market” the investor should be able to obtain
an initial dividend return of between 3
1
⁄2% and 4
1
⁄2% on his stock

purchases, to which should be added a steady increase in underly-
ing value (and in the “normal market price”) of a representative
22 The Intelligent Investor
stock list of about the same amount, giving a return from divi-
dends and appreciation combined of about 7
1
⁄2% per year. The half
and half division between bonds and stocks would yield about 6%
before income tax. We added that the stock component should
carry a fair degree of protection against a loss of purchasing power
caused by large-scale inflation.
It should be pointed out that the above arithmetic indicated
expectation of a much lower rate of advance in the stock market
than had been realized between 1949 and 1964. That rate had aver-
aged a good deal better than 10% for listed stocks as a whole, and it
was quite generally regarded as a sort of guarantee that similarly
satisfactory results could be counted on in the future. Few people
were willing to consider seriously the possibility that the high rate
of advance in the past means that stock prices are “now too high,”
and hence that “the wonderful results since 1949 would imply not
very good but bad results for the future.”
4
2. What Has Happened Since 1964
The major change since 1964 has been the rise in interest rates on
first-grade bonds to record high levels, although there has since
been a considerable recovery from the lowest prices of 1970. The
obtainable return on good corporate issues is now about 7
1
⁄2% and
even more against 4

1
⁄2% in 1964. In the meantime the dividend
return on DJIA-type stocks had a fair advance also during the mar-
ket decline of 1969–70, but as we write (with “the Dow” at 900) it is
less than 3.5% against 3.2% at the end of 1964. The change in going
interest rates produced a maximum decline of about 38% in the
market price of medium-term (say 20-year) bonds during this
period.
There is a paradoxical aspect to these developments. In 1964 we
discussed at length the possibility that the price of stocks might be
too high and subject ultimately to a serious decline; but we did not
consider specifically the possibility that the same might happen to
the price of high-grade bonds. (Neither did anyone else that we
know of.) We did warn (on p. 90) that “a long-term bond may vary
widely in price in response to changes in interest rates.” In the light
of what has since happened we think that this warning—with
attendant examples—was insufficiently stressed. For the fact is that
Investment versus Speculation 23
if the investor had a given sum in the DJIA at its closing price of
874 in 1964 he would have had a small profit thereon in late 1971;
even at the lowest level (631) in 1970 his indicated loss would have
been less than that shown on good long-term bonds. On the other
hand, if he had confined his bond-type investments to U.S. savings
bonds, short-term corporate issues, or savings accounts, he would
have had no loss in market value of his principal during this period
and he would have enjoyed a higher income return than was
offered by good stocks. It turned out, therefore, that true “cash
equivalents” proved to be better investments in 1964 than common
stocks—in spite of the inflation experience that in theory should
have favored stocks over cash. The decline in quoted principal

value of good longer-term bonds was due to developments in the
money market, an abstruse area which ordinarily does not have an
important bearing on the investment policy of individuals.
This is just another of an endless series of experiences over time
that have demonstrated that the future of security prices is never
predictable.* Almost always bonds have fluctuated much less than
stock prices, and investors generally could buy good bonds of any
maturity without having to worry about changes in their market
value. There were a few exceptions to this rule, and the period after
1964 proved to be one of them. We shall have more to say about
change in bond prices in a later chapter.
3. Expectations and Policy in Late 1971 and Early 1972
Toward the end of 1971 it was possible to obtain 8% taxable
interest on good medium-term corporate bonds, and 5.7% tax-free
on good state or municipal securities. In the shorter-term field the
investor could realize about 6% on U.S. government issues due in
five years. In the latter case the buyer need not be concerned about
24 The Intelligent Investor
* Read Graham’s sentence again, and note what this greatest of investing
experts is saying: The future of security prices is never predictable. And as
you read ahead in the book, notice how everything else Graham tells you is
designed to help you grapple with that truth. Since you cannot predict the
behavior of the markets, you must learn how to predict and control your own
behavior.
a possible loss in market value, since he is sure of full repayment,
including the 6% interest return, at the end of a comparatively
short holding period. The DJIA at its recurrent price level of 900 in
1971 yields only 3.5%.
Let us assume that now, as in the past, the basic policy decision
to be made is how to divide the fund between high-grade bonds

(or other so-called “cash equivalents”) and leading DJIA-type
stocks. What course should the investor follow under present con-
ditions, if we have no strong reason to predict either a significant
upward or a significant downward movement for some time in the
future? First let us point out that if there is no serious adverse
change, the defensive investor should be able to count on the cur-
rent 3.5% dividend return on his stocks and also on an average
annual appreciation of about 4%. As we shall explain later this
appreciation is based essentially on the reinvestment by the vari-
ous companies of a corresponding amount annually out of undis-
tributed profits. On a before-tax basis the combined return of his
stocks would then average, say, 7.5%, somewhat less than his inter-
est on high-grade bonds.* On an after-tax basis the average return
on stocks would work out at some 5.3%.
5
This would be about the
same as is now obtainable on good tax-free medium-term bonds.
These expectations are much less favorable for stocks against
bonds than they were in our 1964 analysis. (That conclusion fol-
lows inevitably from the basic fact that bond yields have gone up
much more than stock yields since 1964.) We must never lose sight
Investment versus Speculation 25
* How well did Graham’s forecast pan out? At first blush, it seems, very
well: From the beginning of 1972 through the end of 1981, stocks earned
an annual average return of 6.5%. (Graham did not specify the time period
for his forecast, but it’s plausible to assume that he was thinking of a 10-
year time horizon.) However, inflation raged at 8.6% annually over this
period, eating up the entire gain that stocks produced. In this section of his
chapter, Graham is summarizing what is known as the “Gordon equation,”
which essentially holds that the stock market’s future return is the sum of the

current dividend yield plus expected earnings growth. With a dividend yield
of just under 2% in early 2003, and long-term earnings growth of around
2%, plus inflation at a bit over 2%, a future average annual return of roughly
6% is plausible. (See the commentary on Chapter 3.)